Chapter published in:
Mobilizing Others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities
Edited by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz and Peter Golato
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 33] 2020
► pp. 115–146

Chapter 5
Mobilizing student compliance

On the directive use of Finnish second-person declaratives and interrogatives during violin instruction

| University of Helsinki
Drawing on video-recorded violin lessons as data, the article describes the violin teacher’s use of Finnish second-person declarative and interrogative directives in mobilizing student compliance. The data show that the declarative directives are regularly used when (1) the student is already engaged in the task at hand and (2) the nominated actions concern the basics of violin playing. The paper argues that these directives are thus not only about mobilizing recipient action locally but also about establishing normatively-desired behavior more generally. The interrogative directives, then again, are typically used when (1) there has been a momentary shortcoming in the student’s prior behavior and (2) the nominated action is a one-time accomplishment facilitating the smooth unfolding of the instructional encounter.
Keywords: conversation analysis, instructional interaction, violin lessons, music education, directives, compliance, declaratives, interrogatives, temporality, bodily activities
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Data and method
  • Analysis
    • Second-person declarative directives
    • Second-person interrogative directives
  • Discussion
  • Funding
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.33.05ste
References
Antaki, Charles
2002 “ ‘Lovely’: Turn-Initial High-Grade Assessments in Telephone Closings.” Discourse Studies 4: 5–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra, and Mark Rapley
2000 “ ‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33: 235–262. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
1987 “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different.” Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Jakob Cromdal, and Lena Levin
2017 “Starting Out as a Driver: Progression in Instructed Pedal Work. In Memory Practices and Learning: Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, ed. by Åsa Mäkitalo, Per Linell, and R. Säljö, 113–142. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Leelo Keevallik
2014 “Getting Ready to Move as a Couple: Accomplishing Mobile Formations in a Dance Class.” Space and Culture 17: 107–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 [1978] Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
1999 “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881–909. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1979 “Responding to Indirect Speech Acts.” Cognitive Psychology 11: 430–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2016 Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12: 419–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Tracy S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2015 “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving School Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung 16: 63–101.Google Scholar
2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 1–18.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin
2014 “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
2001 A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, and Amanda LeCouteur
2015 “Clients’ Resistance to Therapists’ Proposals: Managing Epistemic and Deontic Status.” Journal of Pragmatics 90: 12–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan
1976 “Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society 5: 25–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017 “In the Face of Resistance: A Finnish Practice for Insisting on Imperatively Formatted Directives.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 215–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, John, Brian Davies, and Emma Rich
2009 The body made flesh: embodied learning and the corporeal device. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30: 391–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46: 122–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Orchestrating Directive Trajectories in Communicative Projects in Family Interaction.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Paul Drew, 185–214. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho
2004 Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, Jon, Lewis Hyland, and Avijit Banerjee
2014 “Work to Make Simulation Work: “Realism,” Instructional Correction and the Body in Training.” Discourse Studies, 16: 247–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
1981 “Politeness Markers in English and German.” In Conversational Routines: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark, and Mikhail Kissine
2014 Imperatives. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, L.
2010 Bodily quoting in dance correction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4): 401–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew
2016 “Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra
2012 “Responding to Directives: What Can Children Do When a Parent Tells Them What to Do?” In Disputes in Everyday Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People, ed. by Maryanne Theobold, and Susan Danby, 57–84. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra, and Kobin H. Kendrick
2016 “Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 272–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 “The Logic of Politeness: Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s.” In Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 292–305.Google Scholar
Landmark, Anne Marie Dalby, Pål Gulbrandsen, and Jan Svennevig
2015 “Whose Decision? Negotiating Epistemic and Deontic Rights in Medical Treatment Decisions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 54–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna
2008 “Kelan virkailijoiden henkilötunnuspyynnöt: Tutkimus rutiininomaisista toiminnoista. [Asking for Clients’ Identity Number or Identity Card at Finnish Social Security offices: A Study of Routinized Activities.]” Virittäjä 112: 483–517.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1995 “Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities.” Discourse Processes 19: 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Ann Weatherall
2015 “Orientations to Epistemics and Deontics in Treatment Discussions.” Journal of Pragmatics 78: 39–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macbeth, Douglas H.
1991 “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education 3: 281–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McHoul, Alexander
1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7: 183–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, Hugh
1979 Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merlino, Sara
2014 “Singing in ‘Another’ Language: How Pronunciation Matters in the Organisation of Choral Rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24: 420–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
2003 Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2014 “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 269–302. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice
2004 “Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims about Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 447–480. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishizaka, Aug
2006 “What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 119–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parton, Katharine
2014 Epistemic stance in orchestral interaction. Social Semiotics 24: 402–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George
1995 Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed
2014 “The Emergence of Learnables in Music Masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24: 446–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests: The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rouhikoski, Anu
2015 ”Laita, laitatko vai laitat? Kolmen direktiivirakenteen variaatio asiakaspalvelutilanteessa. [Imperative, Interrogative or 2nd-Person Declarative? Variation of Three Directive Constructions in Service Encounters].” Virittäjä 2(2015): 189–222.Google Scholar
Sahlström, J. Fritjof
2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37: 47–57.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 5: 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds) 2013 Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2010 Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
2010 “ ‘Direct’ and ‘Indirect’ Communicative Acts in Semiotic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 337–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 “Lääkärin ohjeet. [Doctor’s Instructions].” In Keskustelu lääkärin vastaanotolla [Conversation during doctor’s consultation], ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Anssi Peräkylä, and Kari Eskola, 89–111. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Hanna Lappalainen
2009 ”’Mä otan tän’. Käynnin syyn esittämisen tavat kioskilla. [‘I’ll have this’. Presenting one’s reason for the visit at convenience store].” In Kieli kioskilla: Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista. [Talk at Convenience Store. Studies on the Routines in Convenience Store Encounters], ed. by Hanna Lappalainen, and Liisa Raevaara, 90–119. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen
2016 “The Finnish No .” In NU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017 Imperative turns at talk: An introduction. In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2011 “Participants’ Deontic Rights and Action Formation: The Case of Declarative Requests for Action.” Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 52. http://​www​.inlist​.uni​-bayreuth​.de​/issues​/52​/Inlist52​.pdf
2013 “Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to Manage Problems in the Initiation of Joint Decision-Making in Finnish Workplace Interaction.” Pragmatics 23: 519–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Chiara Monzoni
2016 “On the Hierarchy of Interactional Resources: Embodied and Verbal Behavior in the Management of Joint Activities with Material Objects.” Journal of Pragmatics 103: 15–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
2017 “Managing Compliance in Violin Instruction: The Case of the Finnish Clitic Particles -pa and -pAs in Imperatives and Hortatives.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 357–380. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society 35: 367–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilising Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon
2013 “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuits of Learnables in Vocal Masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 22–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Veronesi, Daniela
2014 “Correction Sequences and Semiotic Resources in Ensemble Music Workshops: The Case of Conduction®.” Social Semiotics 24: 468–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
2003 Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Peter
1996 A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of Correction Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29: 247–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
West, Candace
1990 “Not Just ‘Doctors’ Orders’: Directive-Response Sequences in Patients’ Visits to Women and Men Physicians.” Discourse and Society 1: 85–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997 Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma
1986 Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö. [Secondary Uses of Finnish Grammatical Forms]. Publications of the Department of Finnish and General Linguistics 28. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Zemel, Alan, and Timothy Koschmann
2011 “Pursuing a Question: Reinitiating IRE Sequences as a Method of Instruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 475–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2011 “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba X (“One Needs to X”).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44: 263–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Giovanni Rossi
2016 “Assistance and Other Forms of Cooperative Engagement.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49: 20–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46: 256–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children’s music instrument instruction. Linguistics Vanguard 7:s4 Crossref logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.